Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 11

11 December 2008

Rolando Gomez

Rolando Gomez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolando Gomez (2nd nomination)

Weak majority was for keep. Deletionists failed to convince me (and possibly others) that the subject is non-notable. Decision to delete seems informed more by vanity issues (subject is meat/sock puppeteering etc) rather than actual sourcing of notability, which should be the sole criteria. There are subjects less notable in wikipedia that have survived AfD where the majority were for delete. I think result should have been no consensus and that at least the closing admin was mistaken in ignoring majority opinion without explanation. Cerejota (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorse deletion: Have one deletion discussion, have six, but that doesn't change the fact that you're dealing with a biography of a living person that (a) does not contain sufficient assertions of notability; and (b) is all-in-all a garbage piece of writing that we should not include in our project. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If that is your opinion, then you should have expressed in the discussion. You didn't participate in the discussion, you closed it without any explanation and when there was no consensus either way. Now we know why, and this means you did a bad closing that should be overturned. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion - or does my nom count? The sources proving notability are all there, in plain sight. Content issues, such as bad writing, are better fixed by cleanup tagging, not AfD. Furthermore, this article was the subject of a previous AfD which established notability. I honestly see no reason why to delete, and in particular find that the discussion was no consensus, not delete. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, your nomination already implies that you want the deletion overturned. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Nothing seems wrong with the deletion decision. No reliable source. Likely a COI. And DRV nominations with the word "deletionist" in them don't inspire confidence that some procedural error will be uncovered with the close. Protonk (talk) 08:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I used "deletionist" as short-hand for "those in favor of deletion", not to refer to the ideological position. I do apologize and realize it was not a good choice of words. That said, please assume good faith. In other things: I do agree there is COI/OWN issues, but I dont agree you resolve COI/OWN by deletion. On reliable sourcing I already stated my position. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion as no consensus The article did contain a sufficient indication of notability if speedy A7 is what is meant - it noted a chapter in a book (maybe a second book too) is devoted to Gomez, that's enough for A7 by any measure. and (b) is just not a criterion for deletion. The discussions were a train-wreck, where a flood of verbiage drowned out ordinary, rational, policy based AfD argument. Numerous questionable sources obscured some good ones. The post deletion seems to be an amusing microcosm of this. Hoping to change to a no consensus through discussion, I commented at closer MZMcBride's page in the midst of numerous edit-conflicting and obstreperous comments from the pesky anon, and my comments were apparently and entirely pardonably missed in this new flood of comments.John Z (talk) 08:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn The admin that deleted it clearly gives his biased opinion in his talk page after the deletion, calling it "garbage" an obvious conflict of interest. He even admits to believing in Wikipedia's Deadline [1] but never gave a reason for the deletion and it was clear the article had no clear consensus and should have been marked as such. The article was tagged {{rescue}} With an article surviving an initial AfD over two years ago, an improper 2nd AfD as proved when "relisted" in the first deletion review, as a minimum it should have been marked for {{Closing}} because at least one admin and one editor were working on the article (see Kuru/Miranda) Wiki deletion policy states [2] "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem. These are listed here [3] and the more common ones include, {{cleanup}} for poor writing, {{stub}} for a short article, {{verify}} for lack of verifiability. Obviously none of the tags were considered for an article already on Wikipedia for over two years.--72.191.15.133 (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I re-read the AFD and would have closed identical to MZM. Further, there were not procedural faults in his close. Valid close within discretion, nothing to do here. MBisanz ^talk 09:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse AFDs consensus measures arguments against policy not headcount and this article demonstratively failed to cite reliable sources to show the subject meets our notability guideline. Rather the offensive comments the adherants of this person are requested to come up with the sources if they have any hope of restoring this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn as no consensus - again I must admit I was a bit surprised at this. I would hope with a history such as this article had that any non-clear keep or delete AFD would be be a no consensus with a closing admonition that editors needed to take the rewriting to heart. The core of the discussion was that this subject is notable enough - even if just barely - and that the article needed to be cleaned up of POV issues. These are not delete options. WP:IDONTLIKEIT and it needs work are also not reasons to delete. We even had an editor sign up to rewrite if it passed AfD. To me the entire process has been an exercise in some rather bad faith assumptions and counter to building good articles. Newby editors should be encouraged in the wiki ways - not beat on the nose with a rolled up newspaper and cyberly called turds. The latest AfD was hardly a clear delete and - I would agree with nom was leaning toward keep and clean-up. -- Banjeboi 11:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• I have read that AFD as well, I was planning to close it as Delete, but with one of my large rants, yea that's an Endorse Secret ^account 13:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. The article may be a biography of a living person, but there's no particularly contentious or harmful material in it, which means BLP doesn't apply. The article included multiple sources when it was deleted and the earlier AFD mentioned several others, meaning the article is verifiable (contrary to what the people voting delete claimed). If the article should be deleted, then it should be based on the correct reasons. These weren't it. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• endorse . I spent a number of hours on this article yesterday trying to improve it. The only sources as of close (and after a lot of discussion and attention, with many editors championing the saving of this article were). 1. Mr. Gomez' personal websites. 2. The website of a digital flash card maker he has a business relationship with. 3. His publisher. I could not find a single reliable, independent source to establish notability. Neither could Mr. Gomez himself (who is the 72.191.15.133 above as per this diff [[4]]). Mr. Gomez authored this page. He has campaigned for its survival and even he can't find a single, reliable, independent source to establish notability. Without the enforcement of basic standards, wikipedia risks being turned into an advertorial myspace. As for no consensus -- it was very hard to tell what was going on there with Mr. Gomez IP badgering all comers (the IP at one point claimed it was not gomez, but simply a fellow member of his "artists collective"), participation of seemingly related IPs, and two or three named SPAs.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• cmt I notice that John Z. above references Gomez short interview in a book as establishing notability. That book was an offering of specialty photographic how-to publisher Amherst Media. The author has only been published by them. Amherst Media is also Mr. Gomez' sole publisher. That's cross-marketting, not establishing notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• reply As I explained on the deleted article talk page, that argument is very strange, is never applied in the countless other instances it could be, and is contrary to policy. If someone publishes his works (only) through Oxford University Press, then a biography of him published by Oxford is not non-independent, not ruled out by any policy, and establishes notability. I and other experienced editors believed some of the other sources were reliable; careful examination and a trip to WP:RS/N might help for cases in dispute. John Z (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Note: Seeing as how the AFD was extended on the same page as the original debate, the closing admin might have accidentally included the old discussion in their decision. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus, as there was none. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and Keep If I read AfD2 correctly, the article was closed as delete and reopened for more input, with the additional votes received being overwhelmingly in favor of retention. Absent a very clear and acceptable explanation from the closer for why consensus should be disregarded, the close would appear to be out of process. Alansohn (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn to No concensus/Keep I was an early "Weak Keep" but the ultimate concensus was rather stronger than that for keeping I thought. Both sides had points, but it seems clear to me the guy could meet notability criteria. I'm rather puzzled at the current status - has this been closed? Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• overturn Consensus was clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn I agree--- the consensus was keep. The right question to ask is "Is there somebody out there who wants verifiable information on this guy, and would be prevented from getting it if this article is deleted?" Since he is a published author, with some secondary articles reviewing his work, I think the answer is yes. His article reads like a promo, but the way to deal with that is to mercilessly cut down the article to a reasonable length, with only the notable aspects--- literature and photography--- not stuff like his passion for mountain biking and his love of Japanese theater.Likebox (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn to No Consensus - There simply wasn't a consensus here t delete and the "voters", with exceptions on both sides, generally used valid arguments based on guidelines. The topic passes WP:BIO, but was written as a self-aggrandizing autobiography, which the delete voters only focused on.--Oakshade (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn: Per administrator's bias. I was a surprised by the comments in the [talk page] of the administrator who closed the deletion:
  • "I do not believe that we should indefinitely host garbage articles on living people."
  • "Ahh, yes, you caught me, detective."
  • "I always make my main target Articles for deletion, because those are such a joy to close and never result in any talk page drama. I had never read this article prior to today, but garbage is garbage, regardless." These are not comments made by a newcomer but an administrator, no excuse whatsoever.--Jmundo (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, I agree no consensus would have been a better close than delete. I don't think anybody here is debating the point that the article does have issues with it, but the way to solve them is not through deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 19:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse: The latest rewrite of the article had the same issues as the previous one. There are only four independent references, three links to the individual's personal website, and over all much more text than should be necessary for the references cited. As such, it is a poorly sourced biography of a living person, and at times was written by the subject himself. Also, in the AFD, there were a slew of single purpose accounts requesting that the page be kept. These are things which should be considered, not the "no consensus" based on head counting (I also completely forgot about this AFD as it seems it was brought back from the dead).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, and it's clear from the comment by 72.191.15.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that the subject is here trying to protect his fifteen minutes of wikifame, yet again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? A personal attack? Really? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Having a page on Wikipedia is not an honor. It is not a privelege, and it should not serve a person's vanity. It is a source of information for other people who care. There's no such thing as "Wikifame", nobody pays attention to your Wikipedia page unless they are searching for information specific to you, in which case they already have some faint idea of who you are. The criteria for inclusion are notability and verifiability. This article is probably too long--- a paragraph stating that the subject is a photographer with a certain corpus and certain publications is probably enough. But that can be easily arranged, so long as this article is not deleted. Then, in twenty years, if Rolando whatsisname becomes more famous, people can add more stuff.Likebox (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• The article was never re-written. In fact, you were the admin that speedy-deleted it without notification, and when questioned, relisted it for a 2nd AfD, only after requested. This was an article that had passed an AfD two-plus years prior. Then when it was in your 2nd AfD, you would delete the verifiable links of sources immediately and eventually blocked the page. And when the article was relisted after the deletion review, which placed it in a "relist" state, it was relisted with an old version, not the one that Kuru placed in Miranda's box for reworking. That's the problem, there are too many copies of the old being judged when a new is what is required. And there were newer versions, of which you deleted, these had independent, verifiable links, including to Lexar the same reference for at least five photographers listed here on Wikipedia. You actually took this article and the request for the 2nd AfD personal as seen in your comments here and on the 2nd AfD. You even discounted the Deputy Public Affairs of Operations from the Air Force stating that he had a vested interested therefore conflict. Alleging the U.S. Air Force had a vested interest is a reach. BTW, he even gave his government email for confirmation. You even discounted and personally attacked Jerry Avenaim who posted in favor of non-deletion. I guess he's your next target so you can reach your deletion quota for future votes in the Wikipedia political beauracrcy. Under Wiki's own policies and procedures there is no-excuse for deletion of an article that survived an AfD for over two-years, then a deletion review that it survived, to be bak here again. An Admin and an Editor both were working on it. I think everyone here should read Delta Airlines in-flight magazine this month on how Wikipedia has lost it name for acts such as these. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)